W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > November 2002

Re: Declarative animation limitations

From: <AndrewWatt2001@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 04:16:51 EST
Message-ID: <7c.31634bcf.2b0a0a03@aol.com>
To: ksmrq@netscape.net, www-svg@w3.org
In a message dated 18/11/2002 07:48:49 GMT Standard Time, ksmrq@netscape.net 
writes:


> 
> AndrewWatt2001@aol.com wrote:
> >You're welcome Ken. I took time to look at it primarily because I found 
> >your comments genuinely interesting. Although I wasn't immediately sure 
> >why you seemed so frustrated. :)
> 
> Thanks. As for the frustration, imagine you wanted to start a new car and 
> discovered the ignition switch was in the back seat.

LOL. I doubt if you can give me lessons in frustration. Imagine the new car 
is the XForms model. Part of the spec suggests the ignition switch is in the 
front seat, part suggests it is in the back seat and part suggests that it 
may be stuck to the back of a camel in Timbuctoo. Then when you ask which it 
is they don't/won't/can't tell you!! 



> The documents on the web, via <http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG2Reqs/> and so on, 
> are brief and sketchy. Nothing I see there indicates an awareness of, or 
> attention to, the issue I am raising.

My reading of that is that the SVG WG is inviting specific ideas. So give 
them clear, well-thought-out, well-expressed ideas. Ideally with a clearly 
expressed use case.


> The SMIL 2.0 REC is, most likely, the source of the problem. As I read it, 
> the design of spline animation is entirely focused on timing, with no sense 
> of the need for interpolants other than linear -- except for animateMotion.

So the practical problem for the SVG WG is how to add greater animation 
functionality without breaking what is already there. They will *have* to 
work within that constraint. Can you express your wants list / wish list in a 
way which doesn't break what already exists and works?

> Alright, I promise not to use "obvious" in the mathematicians' sense. ;)

<grin/> Want to bet you won't be able to keep that promise? :) ... I know you 
bright mathematical guys and what you're like. :)

<various snips>

> Second, if indeed the facility does not exist, I believe SVG (perhaps 2.0) 
> and SMIL should incorporate it. 

That's one approach. It may be that, in time (in 1.2 or 2.0??), that SVG will 
draw its animation facilities from two modules - SMIL Animation plus ANother 
module which has facilities (of the type that interest you) which are of 
marginal or no relevance to SMIL.

If this will modularise cleanly (which I am not clever enough to be able to 
work out at this time on a Monday morning) then you quite possibly have an 
opportunity to input heavily into the thinking.

When it comes to stuff like this I am happy to leave it to others to work out 
how the modularisation would actually work.

<snips which the SVG WG should probably best respond to>


> And is anyone but the two of us paying attention to this thread?

Oh sure. But be kind to the guys on the WG. They may actually use the weekend 
as a weekend and not be sad cases like thee and me! :) Not everybody spends 
the weekend chained to their keyboard.

In particular these guys have just produced two Proposed Recommendations for 
SVG 1.1 and SVG Mobile and a first Working Draft for SVG 1.2. They might have 
gone off celebrating and not be conscious until about Wednesday. :) ... Or 
they may just be too exhausted to remember where the On switch for their 
computer is! :)

And also many of the other members of this mailing list may be spending their 
weekend reading the 1,000 or so pages of the two Proposed Recommendations and 
the Working Draft which came out on Friday rather than following every post 
on a mailing list in real time. I can see why many would prioritise their 
time in that way.

Regards

Andrew Watt
Received on Monday, 18 November 2002 04:17:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:23 GMT